Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
>>PS Good luck all and Ron Thiessen has not sung the final high GBGLF notes IMHO in a fetching schmata!
Alas, GBGLF is already gone....with a whimper not with a bang.
>>Funny how he PPS is constant.
Funny how it's .002ish and you are all stoked about it.
thx. If and when this worm turns, and I do believe it will eventually, there will be some great deals out there - trick now is avoiding the GBGLFs that will hit the brick wall in the interim.
>>Joe was the General Manager at Veris Gold, he quit a few weeks ago. Not sure where he is now.
Any idea why?
Don't know if anyone noticed by Gryphon filed the end of July - they have the JV with Waterton (not for long) that is right next door to Esmerelda mill. Huldra Silver also filed - up in BC but you'll never guess who their their secured lender is. Waterton is not a good partner - not that it is of any concern to the shreds of GBGLF that remain - as there is no triple secret hidden JV on Hollister.
>>Please take a look at the bottom of the page regarding the Fulltime position offered at Esmeralda!
Unfortunately Esmeralda is owned by Waterton - 100% outright.
>>I will buy more GBGLF shares and thank you for the clear and concise advice!
On the bright side, your 2nd 7 million will be much cheaper than the 1st!!! :)
>>How about the other case, that was a re-org that was going to give the entire newco to a couple of funds who were on the EC via a breach of fiduciary duty and with the help of then EC counsel that was going to give the current stockholders a big fat goose egg?
I can't figure this one out - I should be able to guess but I'm at a complete loss. You like these bigger cases for some reason...and then you transpose that onto these smaller ones. And anyone who thinks I didn't call GBGLF long before the turn in the POG and long before the Hollister auction can go over there and ask about that.....lol.
>>I think the better question is why did YOU sat there on the call and didn't ask anything of substance? You've got some experience.
First, I didn't find your questions to be substantive - I found them to be loaded rhetorical questions - as you've already stated they were meant to be. As Brazil can attest, EG was not one of the firms I suggested - so I was on the call first and foremost to gauge their competency, given my experiences in bk. As I stated just after the cc concluded here, I was impressed with what I heard. I was not looking for them to have answers to questions that aren't ripe yet - so I didn't ask those. If I had heard something that seemed amiss, I would have asked. Honestly, when I saw your questions come across, I knew you knew better.
>>Furthermore, why don't you show us ONE case where the UST has appointed an EC based on bad books and a market tested stalking horse that falls well short of covering liabilities?
The alleged 'market tested' stalking horse is not for all the assets - you know the Trustee is going to consider indications of value for what is in China & OK - as well as the fact that the US Trustee knows a stalking horse is just that - and given that it's a very meaningful number I think the stalking horse bodes in favor of an EC, as does the bad books because as you know there are two primary tests for an EC: 1) not HOPELESSLY insolvent and 2) a showing that mgmt cannot adequately represent the interests of equity - and bad books are huge plus on that front.
>>Why don't you come clean and tell everyone here that if the debtor wants to sell all their crap, an EC can't do a dang thing about it?
It's an uphill battle, but the EC can try. They often do - and they more often than not, yes they fail - but now always. We both know in these cases where the EC fights against a sale that the EC must bring financing to the table to take out the creditors if they are going to be successful. Of course, in the current case, do shareholders want to see the sale of the Chinese assets averted if that is the case here? That's the exact opposite of the sentiment I sense on this board - and you know that - so once again you are posing loaded questions just to ask them. For the record, I don't believe you have a secret ulterior agenda - I think you are just really jaded on bk right now and it's clouding your judgement. Was it Chemtura that did that? (Yes, I was on Trident EC)
>>HA. A compelling case still take 5-6 weeks. Reality takes less time. 100 million isn't quite enough to justify a need. You have to be able to show that the debtor intends to re-organize around something, instead of the current liquidation path.
You can have an EC in a liquidation - I've served on an EC in just such a scenario. Wall Street - your comments both here and on the initial ad hoc committee call strike me as being overly cynical - cynical to the point of being defeatest. I've mostly traded BK stocks for the last 10 years - I've seen cases going wrong in a 100 different ways, but I see them go right on occasions as well. Rarely happens when everyone sits on their hands and poo poos every last recourse.
>>Great Basin Gold Limited is an international mining company with two emerging mines in the world's richest gold regions: the Hollister Mine on the Carlin Trend in Nevada and the Burnstone Mine in the Witwatersrand Basin, South Africa. These assets, combined with exploration activities in Tanzania and Mozambique, make Great Basin Gold an exceptionally well positioned investment opportunity.
Great Basin Gold Limited WAS an international mining company THAT USED TO HAVE two emerging mines in the world's richest gold regions: the Hollister Mine on the Carlin Trend in Nevada and the Burnstone Mine in the Witwatersrand Basin, South Africa. These assets, combined with exploration activities THAT THEY USED TO HAVE in Tanzania and Mozambique, MADE Great Basin Gold an exceptionally BAD investment opportunity.
You gonna be rich!!! Lol
Brighter than ever Tex.....GBGLF may be paying a dividend by this time next year. {sarc off}
Quite common in Vancouver for several companies to share an office, especially if they share mgmt. It saves on rent and telephone bills, office expenses etc....so mgmt can take bigger salaries.... while they sink new shafts in equity. :)
Interesting to note that the UCC (unsecured creditor committee) didn't file so much as a limited objection to the sale motion, even though a creditor did: Tumbleweed requested the following:
18. In this case, the proposed Bidding Procedures mu
st be modified to provide
potential partial bidders with clear and express no
tice that they may participate in the proposed
auction process without the fear that they are wast
ing time and money. If they are not provided
with this type of notice, then the goal of maximizi
ng value in the sale process will not be
achieved
Just saw this on one of the bk news sites I follow - only relevant to Agfeed insofar as it highlights the role of the US Trustee in getting an EC - they can approve outright, they can pass it off to the court but still support appointment, or as in this case - they can block it every step of the way.
The U.S. Trustee assigned to the Eastman Kodak case filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court an objection to the shareholders' motion for an order approving the appointment of an official committee of equity security holders. The U.S. Trustee asserts, "It objects to the Equity Committee Motion because the Movant has failed to meet his burden of proof to show that: (i) there is a substantial likelihood that equity shareholders will receive a meaningful distribution in these cases, and (ii) that the interests of the equity shareholders are not adequately represented by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the 'Creditors' Committee'). For these reasons, the United States Trustee requests that the Court deny the Equity Committee Motion."
I think this blog entry on Seekingalpha probably captures what has been driving the crazy swings in pps. Still not sure if folks are being taken for a ride or not.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1579992-k-v-pharmaceuticals-one-of-the-best-risk-reward-scenarios-youll-come-across?source=google_news
"Until they can start a dialogue with the US Trustee they don't really know the extent of the uphill battle here"
Ultimately, I suppose one could say that this is a war over maximizing what is there for equity, and within that war there will be many uphill battles. Getting compensated for China is one of those (so is maximizing the value from the US 363 Sale), but the first one is getting representation at the table, so the uphill battle I was specifically referring to is getting official court recognition of an EC. Yes, a law firm can read the 8/10Ks, the documentation that has come out so far (much more will come out - specifically the Statements and Schedules) - but they are only going to put so much pro-bono time into this before they want the meter to start running. It's hard to say exactly how to approach China when we don't even know exactly what mgmt's plans are - the key is to have a voice in the process as that plan is presented to the court. Another issue that I've not seen yet is the KEIP - Key Employee Incentive Plan - an EC will try and keep this as responsible as possible. It was brought up as well today in the context of fees that the Debtors counsel and FA along with the Unsecured Creditors Committee tend to rack up much larger fees than an EC - and one job of the EC is to object to the court if and when these get egregious - these are all little battles that will come, but unless equity gets past the first uphill battle of getting recognition, the others don't even happen. What any law firm should do at this point is put in just enough time to handicap the odds of getting an EC, and once a determination is made that the odds are good, then you approach the US Trustee to try and get more color. What the US Trustee has is the power to appoint an EC, or if it refuses to exercise that power, it also has the influence to make the court process for getting an EC easier or harder. That's why they want to approach the Trustee, but they can't approach the Trustee without a client to represent. If they hit a huge stone wall with the US Trustee, I would guess they are going to want to see a kitty set up to cover some fees, if on the other hand, the US Trustee is more or less amenable to appointment, I'd guess they might spec the whole thing. For the record, I was not one that had a call with EG after the CC today, nor are they a firm I've had prior dealings with.
>>Regarding upfront payments - when you addressed this before, thought I understood you to say that it was customary for BK firms to absorb the initial costs of doing the work necessary to petition the court to form the EC...with the understanding that, if successful, they would get the business and start billing the $40K per month for legal services and $20K per month for FA services (that BC requested as a cap during the cc, and had some push back).
It is customary from my experience. I heard them saying they would put time into this upfront, but there was a limit on how much time they would put in without requiring some seed capital. Until they can start a dialogue with the US Trustee they don't really know the extent of the uphill battle here, but they can't do that until at least two or three shareholders tell them to speak on their behalf. Until we are asked to sign an engagement letter that states we will be responsible for paying their fees, they aren't putting anyone on the hook yet.
>>I agree - if the creditors are due $95M, and the bid for US assets $79M, the creditors are already motivated to make sure the bid is increased - so was unsure why we need to file something today.
I've not gone back to verify the claim, but the reason for filing something today is that the deadline to object to the bidding procedures filed by the debtor on the first day of the case expires today, according to the attys on the call. If noone objects, then those bidding procedures are set in stone. One of the more glaring parts of the procedures is the relatively short marketing runway - short by usual bankruptcy customs. One thing that is not uncommon in bk - and I'm not saying it's happening here, but that it happens - is that mgmt sees it's on a ship that is sinking despite having some nice assets. Mgmt, dealing primarily for it's own best interests, will arrange for a friend to buy those assets. To make it all legit, it has to go through the 363 sale process, where in theory anyone who is interested can show up. But one way to tilt the playing field is to give the friend (who presumably will return the favor by hiring said mgmt after auction) first crack at doing their due diligence, then file and schedule an auction so quickly that noone else hardly has time to do their own dd, line up financing and qualify to be part of the auction. That is largely what they were getting at at objecting to the timeline before the end of the day. Now, it may be that mgmt has already thoroughly marketed the assets and more time wouldn't make any difference at all - that is a reply that they can make to the objection, and the court would require them to make a showing of that fact. The unsecured creditor committee may or may not be inclined the same way - they may feel that they are close enough to full recovery given the existence of other assets they they don't need to worry about it as much as equity maybe should worry about it.
>>The glaring admission that this is sitting negative 20 million right now is something that can't be overlooked.
The 20 mm delta is between the current stalking horse for less than all the assets and the claims hurdle...if China is worth more than 20 million (and the US assets not included in the sale), and/or there is a robust auction - that's a much smaller hurdle than I've seen in other successful bankruptcies.
>>They are looking for a job since work is slow
No doubt they would like to land the gig. I didn't hear them asking for funds to file the objection to auction procedures. What I heard them say is that they might require seed money if the EC request has to go to a full blown hearing - but they aren't asking anyone to sign on the dotted line to be on the hook for those yet.
Their point that the other constituencies have counsel at the table, and that they have priorities very different from those of equity are quite valid - and that's the reason that equity should have counsel - especially this short marketing runway for the US assets - there is hardly time under the proposed schedule for anyone interested in bidding to arrange financing and qualify.
I was impressed with the call. I do believe equity is far better off with representation and concerns about costs are probably along the lines of penny wise and pound foolish - just my 2 cents from past experience.
>>I also have small kids who still want to spend time with me. These are my priorities.
+++
Call is a good idea Brazil. I will try to get on tomorrow. Your questions are good. The one that sticks out is how the derivative class action works out. My experience is that somehow the stay of Chapter 11 mostly makes these go away. It's weird because I've watched many of them drop away in other cases, but it's never really explicit why that happens the way it does.
>>Buys at the ask have exceeded MAXM's lot of 10K by 500K but the MM won't move. There's your free market for ya.
iceberg
>>Which I'm also making the assumption that you go long or short those companies, making at least some kind ownership in those companies.
I'd never short a bankrupt company - no matter what. I've seen way too many that are absolutely beyond question worthless go on crazy runs even after a plan giving nothing to equity was approved - the SEC/Finra/DTC will fully delist a few, but most continue to trade, sometimes for years.
>>My problems are with those who come onto the MB's stating they own no shares, have no plans to own one way or the other, and that they are there only to share their wisdom and altruistic ways with everyone
I do have a position here, albeit small because it was not easy getting shares last week under a dime. But I will contribute my thoughts even on bankrupt companies where I have no position, and I can assure you that it's not due to a secret agenda. One thing I like about BK is that while you are usually looking at a far more diverse set of sectors, the bankruptcy process is always the same. Therefore, I will follow cases where I don't necessarily think the shares are worth getting long on (and as I said, I won't short down here) because there are parts of the process that I want to watch play out - because I think they will help me with other cases in the future. And I'll post on those boards - with full disclosure that I don't have a position - it's not so much to be altruistic but to have discussions about what I think I'm seeing. I know there are at least a few others like myself. To your point, there are also some that come on with alterior motives. I don't think they come from the atty's offices though - those guys have contacts they can call if they really want to birddog a case.
I get your point about not liking attorneys. You know the joke about women getting pregnant from 'behind'....that's where attys come from. I tend to prefer ECs despite the cost, because if you are stuck with a room full of atty's, you don't want to be the one without one. Mgmt has attys, creditors have attys....equity having attys will raise the overall admin cost, but they usually shift a bigger piece of the pie to more than compensate. I will say I've been involved with at least one case where I believe the EC atty probably got in the way and did more harm than good.
>>If they are only getting involved in companies once they go BK, they have an agenda
That agenda would be making money. I only look at bks, plus a few miners from time to time. There can be some pretty spectacular returns in rare instances, plus there are the dockets which provide an amazing amount of info....and let's face it, one of the worst things that can happen to a company you own has already happened.
>>And constantly say how many of these stocks and situations they been in before. Really, you didn't learn your lesson
You do realize that there are a few crazy people out there who never look at stocks until they file bk?
>>Hollister ore is transported to their mill in Hawthorne, NV. It is the Esmeralda Mill and they bought it in 2008.
GBG trucking ore 300 miles one way for milling should have been the tip off two years ago that maybe they didn't know what they were doing.
I would concur with your assessment of Glassman, had a similar experience where a lot of time was billed for services that were completely outside of the scope of what he had been retained to do, basically be local counsel.
>>Barrick basically owns Waterton Global Resources
No. Waterton sniped a bunch of Barrick technical people last year because they wanted to start taking over the companies that they were financing. That is the extent of the Barrick connection. Waterton runs private money for accredited investors - very high fees, but they are good at being ruthless. They didn't and wouldn't leave anything on the table, trust me.
I am watching newsfeeds for GBGLF. If I see the good scammers start pumping in earnest, I may actually take a position here. But I'm less than convinced they will do it here given the huge O/S. There has been a group running KVPHQ hard this past month or so - they are good. Fools buying shares all the way up to .80 cents - but equity is toast. Another group has run BCONQ up to .05 - there is nothing there, but similar to GBG there are news items about the company that bought their assets last year - people don't realize that they don't own the company in the news. Crazy.
Brazil - you might enjoy this article. The guy who co-wrote it, Glassman, was local counsel on the last EC I served on. It's a good primer.
http://www.bayardlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/zone_insolvency_glassman_schlerf_ward.pdf
>>A webmaster would only cost max. 50 dollars an hour and could remove all of the Nevada Hollister Gold assets from the GBG website in 30 minutes so... ?
They likely hired an outside Webmaster way back when, who no doubt has not been paid for monthly hosting in a very long time....at this point I'd say the page is orphaned.
Brazil,
I believe I might be able to line up a meeting for you with a bankruptcy attorney who has handled several high profile ECs. If you take my yahoo handle and add @yahoo.com I can discuss with you in more detail.
My guess is that James just fired off a letter. It doesn't look like it had the touch of a lawyer. One thing you might want to try Brazil is calling the US Trustee's office and expressing your interest in pursuing an EC. The US Trustee should be quite open and frank with you and should be receptive to hearing your concerns - that's really what their job is. That's one of the first things an attorney is going to do - call and feel out the trustee as the trustee does have the power to appoint the EC without ever stepping foot in court.
I don't completely agree with all the points in that letter. It's very very common in bankruptcy to not have foreign subsidiaries included in the filing. So the assets themselves are not under the purview of the court, but the ownership of the shares in the foreign sub is. I suspect that the letter won't get much attention as FEED mgmt isn't hiding the fact that the foreign subs aren't included.
James Regnante
Is James on Ihub? http://docs.bmcgroup.com/Agfeed/docs/deb_1-13-bk-11761_55.pdf
As I was saying yesterday over on yahoo, two things are critical to getting an EC - 1) a showing that the the company is not 'hopelessly insolvent' and 2) a showing that equity is not otherwise represented by mgmt. I don't know much about the company yet - you probably have a good handle on this, but I would point first to the lack of published financials the past two years - that alone shows a lack of responsiveness on the part of mgmt and a very valid reason for equity to have an official seat at the table here. Given the size of the stalking horse bid, I think most good attorneys would be fairly confident about landing the EC.
Brazil,
I would try giving Carmen Lonstein at Baker Mackenzie in Chicago a call. I don't know her personally, but she is one of the best, and I believe the firm is willing to spec an EC request IF you can present a very compelling case. Lawyers love to get these gigs so if you can put a compelling case in their lap, they will usually do the legwork involved in making the request for free with the understanding that the newly appointed EC would retain their firm if and when appointed. Vincent Indelicato @ Proskaur Rose would be another to try. Neither is in Delaware, but both regularly represent constituents in BK cases there. Again, the willingness to spec the request will hinge on how compelling a case you can make up front.
Archstanton has a point, and yes the fees of the EC do come out of what is left for equity, if anything. But the idea is that the leftover pot is bigger because of the EC. Creditors can try all sorts of shenangans to divert $$$ their way, mgmt tends to do the same...and it's the EC's job to rein that sort of stuff in. In the vast majority of cases that get ECs, shareholders are better off for having them.
Espnrick,
I don't have premium membership - couldn't respond privately to your email. Where do I think this case is? I personally think Berg is trying to trying to capitalize on the obvious strategic interest that was present in the A123 case.....interesting courtroom notes on the battle royale between Wanxiang and JCI here https://www.facebook.com/notes/delaware-shareholder-services/aoneq-hearing-121112/495483290501917 . This case took a major detour right after that auction - so I personally believe what happened there has a lot to do with where this case goes - but it remains impossible to say exactly what will happen and whether JCI will step forward at the end of the day to pick up the Valence IP. Berg isn't going to sell it an any price - only at a price that is acceptable to him. We know there was an offer presented to the board last month - but the board wasn't allowed to vote it up or down as it was preconditioned on Berg's approval. The latest fee apps would appear to suggest that this offer came from 'George' - my guess is that he represents a patent litigation group - that's mostly based on repeated references to 'licensing' and 'waterfall structures'. Typically when a patent troll goes after IP, the structure of the deal is mostly back ended - Valence would get a % of any lawsuits they could successfully prosecute, hence the payout comes in the future and waterfall structures are incorporated into the plan such that creditors get paid with initial victories and shareholders get compensated, if ever, with later victories, if there are any. Fee apps indicate that the atty's spent considerable time negotiating with George, but Berg was never really on the same page. Is JCI driving a hard bargain as they initially did in the A123 case? Berg is a pretty sharp guy, I'd guess he is more focused on what they were willing to pay in the end vs what they offered up at first there. I think we get an answer one way or the other soon....like a month or two.
>>So no answers,,,,,,again. There has to be something else that we can't seem to find in the FIN mess that hasn't been updated in years. GBGLF
That's not a guess on my part - it is the answer. GBG is in receivership, all officers and directors have resigned, and the receiver has stated that remaining secured claims won't be paid in full - that's it.....fini! But GBGLF will keep on trading till it doesn't - not unlike a great game of musical chairs. There will be people out there who are fairly certain that if they throw 20k at the shares and drive up the price 50%, that that movement alone will get another dozen suckers to fall all over themselves to drive the price up another 50%, and they will distribute straight into that. You can make some change playing the game, but it's important to remember that at this point it is a game because there is not fundamental value left in the company. fwiw
>>Hopefully some other will join us as well to gather over 10% which should provide us a chair in the board.
what Board?
http://www.sedar.com/CheckCode.do;jsessionid=0000nTe-u6f6rSHoSxnT_HgkhcL:17lkkk26t
LEGAL_21002189.1
FORM 51
–
102F3
MATERIAL CHANGE REPORT
UNDER NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 51
-
102
Item 1
Name and Address of Company
Great Basin Gold Ltd.
(the “Company”)
Ground Floor, 138 West Street
Sandton
2146
Item 2
Date of Material Change
June 28, 2013
Item 3
News Release
June 28, 2013
Item 4
Summary of Material Change
The
principal creditors of the Company successfully petitioned the BC Supreme Court to
appoint a
Receiver
over
the assets and undertaking
of the Company.
Consequently
all directors and officers of
the Company have resigned
June 28, 2013
Madaneils57 - I've very much appreciated your posts over on the yahoo board. As I said here a few days ago, I'm completely new to AgFeed. I mostly follow bankruptcies, though I have a soft spot for commodities too. While Chinese R/Ms make me nervous, especially when we don't have current financials, the bankruptcy venue may help to bring some clarity to just exactly what the situation is, though it may take a month or two for some of that to come out in the motion practice. This case could get interesting if the Chinese assets can be montetized and if we get a robust auction. It's a short marketing runway for the US assets, but it does appear that they've been at least decently marketed prior to the filing. I was fortunate enough to jump on a decent little lot of CDC Software a year and half ago - different business but possibly not a completely different scenario. In that particular case the US courts were able to exert some influence over the mgmt structure. I'm not yet familiar enough with FEEDQ to really know where those mgmt issues may be - I just suspect there are some based on reading your posts.